Midterm Outcomes of Stented Versus Stentless Bioprosthetic Valves After Aortic Root Replacement.

To determine the impact of aortic root replacement (ARR) with a stentless bioprosthetic valve on midterm outcomes compared to a stented bioprosthetic valve-graft conduit. This was an observational study of aortic root operations from 2010 to 2018. All patients with a complete ARR for nonendocarditis reasons were included, while patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacements or primary aortic valve replacement or repair were excluded. Of the patients with a complete ARR, bioprosthetic valve implants were included, while mechanical valve implants were excluded. Patients were dichotomized into the stented ARR group and the stentless ARR group. A total of 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity matching was employed to assess the association of stentless valves with short-term and midterm outcomes. A total of 455 patients underwent a complete ARR with a bioprosthetic valve implant for nonendocarditis reasons, of which 212 (46.6%) received a stented valve, while 243 (53.4%) received a stentless valve. After matching, postoperative outcomes were similar across each group (P > 0.05), including operative mortality and adverse neurologic events. Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 4.41 years (95% CI: 4.01, 4.95). At 1 year follow-up, aortic regurgitation ≥ 2+ and ejection fraction were similar across each group (P > 0.05); however, the stentless valve group had lower aortic valve velocity and transvalvular pressure gradient. Finally, reoperations and survival were similar for each group over the study's follow-up (P > 0.05). Stentless valves may provide hemodynamic benefits after ARR; however, the clinical impact of those benefits for survival and reoperation may not yet be evident in the midterm.

Treatment of aortic valve endocarditis with stented or stentless valve.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to provide evidence for choosing a bioprosthesis in treating patients with active aortic valve endocarditis. METHODS: From 1998 to 2017, 265 patients with active aortic valve endocarditis underwent aortic valve replacement with a stented valve (n = 97, 37%) or a stentless valve (n = 168, 63%) with further breakdown into inclusion technique (n = 142, 85%) or total root replacement (n = 26, 15%). Data were obtained from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database aided with chart review, surveys, and National Death Index data. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 53 years (43-56) in the stented group and 57 years (44-66) in the stentless group. The stented and stentless groups had high rates of heart failure (54% and 40%), liver disease (16% and 7.7%), prosthetic valve endocarditis (14% and 48%), root abscess (38% and 70%), and concomitant ascending aorta procedures (6.2% and 22%), respectively. The stentless group required permanent pacemakers in 11% of cases. Operative mortality was similar between groups (6.2% and 7.1%). The 5-year survival was 52% and 63% in the stented and stentless groups, respectively. Significant risk factors for long-term mortality included liver disease (hazard ratio, 2.38), previous myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 1.64), congestive heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.63), and renal failure requiring dialysis (hazard ratio, 4.37). The 10-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 12% and 3.4% for the stented and stentless groups, respectively. The 10-year freedom from reoccurrence of aortic valve endocarditis was 88% for the stented and 98% for the stentless groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both stented and stentless aortic valves are appropriate conduits for replacement of active aortic valve endocarditis for select patients.

Clinical outcome and hemodynamic behavior of the Labcor Dokimos Plus aortic valve.

BACKGROUND: The Labcor Dokimos Plus (LDP) is a stented externally mounted pericardial aortic bioprosthesis, which was recently introduced in Europe. Aims of the study are evaluation of operative and postoperative results as well as hemodynamic performance. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients with a mean age of 65.9 ± 10.7 years (range 35-87) and a mean EuroSCORE II of 3.1 ± 3.9 (range 0.67-24.5) underwent aortic valve replacement with the LDP. Mean valve-size was 25.2 ± 1.7 mm. Concomitant procedures were performed in 34% of the cases. Postoperative clinical data were analyzed and hemodynamic performance of the prostheses was evaluated by transthoracic echocardiography. Clinical follow-up was 100%, echocardiographic follow-up was 93% complete. RESULTS: Intraoperatively no peculiarities occurred. Mean cross clamp times for isolated and complex procedures were 74.5 ± 20.0 min and 103.7 ± 37.1 min, respectively. Patients were extubated after a mean of 9.4 ± 15.8 h. There were no perioperative strokes. Bleeding events occurred in 4 patients. 30-day-mortality was 2%. One case of early endocarditis occurred. Echocardiography showed maximum and mean pressure gradients of 18.1 ± 6.4 and 9.6 ± 3.7 mmHg, respectively. Correspondingly to valve sizes 21, 23, 25 and 27 mm, mean pressure gradients were 17.3, 9.5, 8.5 and 10.2 mmHg, effective orifice areas were 1.92, 1.79, 2.0, 2.16 cm2 and indexed effective orifice areas were 1.08, 0.95, 0.99 and 1.01 cm2/m2, respectively. No relevant regurgitations occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The LDP showed operatively no peculiarities and a satisfactory clinical outcome with low perioperative morbidity and mortality. The hemodynamic performance of the implanted valve sizes was satisfactory.

Sutureless, rapid deployment valves and stented bioprosthesis in aortic valve replacement: recommendations of an International Expert Consensus Panel.

OBJECTIVES: After a panel process, recommendations on the use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves in aortic valve replacement were given with special respect as an alternative to stented valves. METHODS: Thirty-one international experts in both sutureless, rapid deployment valves and stented bioprostheses constituted the panel. After a thorough literature review, evidence-based recommendations were rated in a three-step modified Delphi approach by the experts. RESULTS: Literature research could identify 67 clinical trials, 4 guidelines and 10 systematic reviews for detailed text analysis to obtain a total of 28 recommendations. After rating by the experts, 12 recommendations were identified and degree of consensus for each was determined. Proctoring and education are necessary for the introduction of sutureless valves on an institutional basis as well as for the individual training of surgeons. Sutureless and rapid deployment should be considered as the valve prosthesis of first choice for isolated procedures in patients with comorbidities, old age, delicate aortic wall conditions such as calcified root, porcelain aorta or prior implantation of aortic homograft and stentless valves as well as for concomitant procedures and small aortic roots to reduce cross-clamp time. Intraoperative transoesophageal echocardiography is highly recommended, and in case of right anterior thoracotomy, preoperative computer tomography is strongly recommended. Suitable annular sizes are 19-27 mm. There is a contraindication for bicuspid valves only for Type 0 and for annular abscess or destruction due to infective endocarditis. Careful but complete decalcification of the aortic root is recommended to avoid paravalvular leakage; extensive decalcification should be avoided not to create annular defects. Proximal anastomoses of concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting should be placed during a single aortic cross-clamp period or alternatively with careful side clamping. Available evidence suggests that the use of sutureless and rapid deployment valve is associated with (can translate into) reduced early complications such as prolonged ventilation, blood transfusion, atrial fibrillation, pleural effusions and renal replacement therapy, respectively, and may result in reduced intensive care unit and hospital stay in comparison with traditional valves. CONCLUSION: The international experts recommend various benefits of sutureless and rapid deployment technology, which may represent a helpful tool in aortic valve replacement for patients requiring a biological valve. However, further evidence will be needed to reaffirm the benefit of sutureless and rapid deployment valves.